CJ Supreme Court Power

Greetings, 

To answer a part of your query,

The Indian Constitution gives power to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to take Suo Motu action.

Under Article Article-129 and Article-215, The HC and SC can take action in case of contempt of court.

Article-129: The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Article-215: Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

In the cases of violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court and the High Court may take the Suo moto action under Article-32 and Article-226 of the Constitution.

Article-32 - The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to entertain the cases related to the enforcement of the fundamental rights. The Apex Court has the power to take up the cases and initiate proceedings, that are pending before the High Courts of any State.

Article-226 -  High Courts have the power to initiate legal action on their cognizance based on the information or PIL that they receive from media or any third party.

As well as, under article 131, the Supreme Court is vested with the power to take up action in case of any dispute arising between two States or between the Centre and a State.

I hope this helped.

Thanks and Regards,

Megha Bindal

So it is obvious only Superior /higher court can excersie said power. Not other court.
Thank you Sir for detailed explanation.

As per illustrated query!

Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution enable the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue any directions to do or refrain to do an act. These two Articles and also the emergence of Public Interest Litigation has allowed these Courts to take up Suo Moto cases.

However, Older jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have not taken up such powers. Administrative and constitutional law cases in these jurisdictions remain within the traditional adversarial procedure, where a petition must be filed before a claim can be considered.

Hope it clarifies the issues!
Regards
Minakshi Bindhani 

Additionally, In the United States, the Constitution by virtue of Article III Section 2 Clause 1 allows the courts to take cognizance of a case only if there is a “case or controversy” involved. This has been interpreted to mean that the US Judiciary will not take up cases that are theoretical, unripe, advisory or where the matter has become moot. The Indian courts have long taken the lead in suo-motu cases, both in number and in scope.

It can be argued that such restraint is possible only in a mature democracy where the rule of law is accepted and there is public confidence in the abilities of the administrative and executive bodies. 

Hope this helps

Regards